Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:2003.05718 · Foundations of Physics

Quantum postulate vs. quantum nonlocality: on the role of the Planck constant in Bell’s argument

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

Published Feb 1, 2021• 19 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Abstract We present a quantum mechanical (QM) analysis of Bell’s approach to quantum foundations based on his hidden-variable model. We claim and try to justify that the Bell model contradicts to the Heinsenberg’s uncertainty and Bohr’s complementarity principles. The aim of this note is to point to the physical seed of the aforementioned principles. This is the Bohr’squantum postulate: the existence of indivisible quantum of action given by the Planck constanth. By contradicting these basic principles of QM, Bell’s model implies rejection of this postulate as well. Thus, this hidden-variable model contradicts not only the QM-formalism, but also the fundamental feature of the quantum world discovered by Planck.

DOI
10.1007/s10701-021-00430-3

Related papers

Bell Model with Hidden Variables and Bohr Quantum Postulate on the Existence of Indivisible Quantum of Action Given by Planck Constant H.

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

This note is a part of my efforts for getting rid of nonlocality from quantum mechanics (QM). Quantum nonlocality is two faced Janus, one face is apparent quantum mechanical nonlocality (assigned with projection postulate), another face is nonlocality of Bell's model with the hidden variables. This paper is directed against the latter. The main casualty of Bell's model is that it contradicts to the Heinsenberg's uncertainty and Bohr's complementarity principles. The aim of this note is to point to the physical seed of the aforementioned principles. This is the {\it quantum postulate}: the existence of indivisible quantum of action given by the Planck constant. Bell's model by contradicting to the basic principles of QM implies rejection of this postulate. Thus, it contradicts not only to the QM-formalism, but also to the fundamental feature of the quantum world that was initially discovered by Planck.

•Jul 19, 2020•0 citations

Is the Devil in h?

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

This note is a part of my effort to rid quantum mechanics (QM) nonlocality. Quantum nonlocality is a two faced Janus: one face is a genuine quantum mechanical nonlocality (defined by the Lüders' projection postulate). Another face is the nonlocality of the hidden variables model that was invented by Bell. This paper is devoted the deconstruction of the latter. The main casualty of Bell's model is that it straightforwardly contradicts Heisenberg's uncertainty and Bohr's complementarity principles generally. Thus, we do not criticize the derivation or interpretation of the Bell inequality (as was done by numerous authors). Our critique is directed against the model as such. The original Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argument assumed the Heisenberg's principle without questioning its validity. Hence, the arguments of EPR and Bell differ crucially, and it is necessary to establish the physical ground of the aforementioned principles. This is the quantum postulate: the existence of an indivisible quantum of action given by the Planck constant. Bell's approach with hidden variables implicitly implies rejection of the quantum postulate, since the latter is the basis of the reference principles.

Entropy•May 19, 2021•23 citations

Quantum Postulate as the Seed of the Complementarity Principle

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

The hidden variable project realized by Bell contradicts the uncertaintyand complementarity principles. The inequalities derived with Bell’s hidden variablesare violated for quantum observables. Thus, Bell’s hidden variables shouldbe rejected and the validity of quantum theory is confirmed. (This foundationalachievement deserved the Nobel Prize in 2022.) This scientific loop,ignorance of the uncertainty and complementarity principles – hidden variablesmodel – Bell’s inequalities – their violation – reestablishing the validityof the uncertainty and complementarity principles, was stimulating for quantumfoundations. However, Bohr and Heisenberg might say that such resultscan be expected from the very beginning. For them, the uncertainty andcomplementarity principles form the basis of quantum physics. And theycan’t be rejected, since they are the consequences of the so-called quantum postulate– the existence of an indivisible quantum of action given by Planck’sconstant h. The quantum postulate is the ontological basis of quantum theory.I formulated its epistemic counterpart in the form of the principle ofquantum action invariance.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Nov 28, 2024•0 citations

The case of quantum mechanics mathematizing reality: the “superposition” of mathematically modelled and mathematical reality: Is there any room for gravity?

Vasil Dinev Penchev

A case study of quantum mechanics is investigated in the framework of the philosophical opposition “mathematical model – reality”. All classical science obeys the postulate about the fundamental difference of model and reality, and thus distinguishing epistemology from ontology fundamentally. The theorems about the absence of hidden variables in quantum mechanics imply for it to be “complete” (versus Einstein’s opinion). That consistent completeness (unlike arithmetic to set theory in the foundations of mathematics in Gödel’s opinion) can be interpreted furthermore as the coincidence of model and reality. The paper discusses the option and fact of that coincidence it its base: the fundamental postulate formulated by Niels Bohr about what quantum mechanics studies (unlike all classical science). Quantum mechanics involves and develops further both identification and disjunctive distinction of the global space of the apparatus and the local space of the investigated quantum entity as complementary to each other. This results into the analogical complementarity of model and reality in quantum mechanics. The apparatus turns out to be both absolutely “transparent” and identically coinciding simultaneously with the reflected quantum reality. Thus, the coincidence of model and reality is postulated as necessary condition for cognition in quantum mechanics by Bohr’s postulate and further, embodied in its formalism of the separable complex Hilbert space, in turn, implying the theorems of the absence of hidden variables (or the equivalent to them “conservation of energy conservation” in quantum mechanics). What the apparatus and measured entity exchange cannot be energy (for the different exponents of energy), but quantum information (as a certain, unambiguously determined wave function) therefore a generalized law of conservation, from which the conservation of energy conservation is a corollary. Particularly, the local and global space (rigorously justified in the Standard model) share the complementarity isomorphic to that of model and reality in the foundation of quantum mechanics. On that background, one can think of the troubles of “quantum gravity” as fundamental, direct corollaries from the postulates of quantum mechanics. Gravity can be defined only as a relation or by a pair of non-orthogonal separable complex Hilbert space attachable whether to two “parts” or to a whole and its parts. On the contrary, all the three fundamental interactions in the Standard model are “flat” and only “properties”: they need only a single separable complex Hilbert space to be defined.

•Aug 31, 2020•0 citations

Violation of the Bell’s type inequalities as a local expression of incompatibility

Andrei Yu. Khrennikov

Abstract By filtering out the philosophic component we can be said that the EPR-paper was directed against the straightforward interpretation of the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle or more generally the Bohr’s complementarity principle. The latter expresses contextuality of quantum measurements: dependence of measurement’s output on the complete experimental arrangement. However, Bell restructured the EPR-argument against complementarity to justify nonlocal theories with hidden variables of the Bohmian mechanics’ type. Then this Bell’s kind of nonlocality - subquantum nonlocality - was lifted to the level of quantum theory - up to the terminology “quantum nonlocality”. The aim of this short note is to explain that Bell’s test is simply a special test of local incompatibility of quantum observables, similar to interference experiments, e.g., the two-slit experiment.

arXiv:1902.07070•Journal of Physics Conference Series•Sep 1, 2019•3 citations

Quantum Mechanics as a Classical Theory III: Epistemology

L. S. F. Olavo

The two previous papers developed quantum mechanical formalism from classical mechanics and two additional postulates. In the first paper it was also shown that the uncertainty relations possess no ontological validity and only reflect the formalism's limitations. In this paper, a Realist Interpretation of quantum mechanics based on these results is elaborated and compared to the Copenhagen Interpretation. We demonstrate that von Neumann's proof of the impossibility of a hidden variable theory is not correct, independently of Bell's argumentation. A local hidden variable theory is found for non-relativistic quantum mechanics, which is nothing else than newtonian mechanics itself. We prove that Bell's theorem does not imply in a non-locality of quantum mechanics, and also demonstrate that Bohm's theory cannot be considered a true hidden variable theory.

arXiv:quant-ph/9503022•Mar 28, 1995•0 citations
Abstract We present a quantum mechanical (QM) analysis of Bell’s approach to quantum foundations based on his hidden-variable model. We claim and try to justify that the Bell model contradicts to the Heinsenberg’s uncertainty and Bohr’s complementarity principles. The aim of this note is to point to the physical seed of the aforementioned principles. This is the Bohr’squantum postulate: the existence of indivisible quantum of action given by the Planck constanth. By contradicting these basic principles of QM, Bell’s model implies rejection of this postulate as well. Thus, this hidden-variable model contradicts not only the QM-formalism, but also the fundamental feature of the quantum world discovered by Planck.
This note is a part of my efforts for getting rid of nonlocality from quantum mechanics (QM). Quantum nonlocality is two faced Janus, one face is apparent quantum mechanical nonlocality (assigned with projection postulate), another face is nonlocality of Bell's model with the hidden variables. This paper is directed against the latter. The main casualty of Bell's model is that it contradicts to the Heinsenberg's uncertainty and Bohr's complementarity principles. The aim of this note is to point to the physical seed of the aforementioned principles. This is the {\it quantum postulate}: the existence of indivisible quantum of action given by the Planck constant. Bell's model by contradicting to the basic principles of QM implies rejection of this postulate. Thus, it contradicts not only to the QM-formalism, but also to the fundamental feature of the quantum world that was initially discovered by Planck.
This note is a part of my effort to rid quantum mechanics (QM) nonlocality. Quantum nonlocality is a two faced Janus: one face is a genuine quantum mechanical nonlocality (defined by the Lüders' projection postulate). Another face is the nonlocality of the hidden variables model that was invented by Bell. This paper is devoted the deconstruction of the latter. The main casualty of Bell's model is that it straightforwardly contradicts Heisenberg's uncertainty and Bohr's complementarity principles generally. Thus, we do not criticize the derivation or interpretation of the Bell inequality (as was done by numerous authors). Our critique is directed against the model as such. The original Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) argument assumed the Heisenberg's principle without questioning its validity. Hence, the arguments of EPR and Bell differ crucially, and it is necessary to establish the physical ground of the aforementioned principles. This is the quantum postulate: the existence of an indivisible quantum of action given by the Planck constant. Bell's approach with hidden variables implicitly implies rejection of the quantum postulate, since the latter is the basis of the reference principles.
The hidden variable project realized by Bell contradicts the uncertaintyand complementarity principles. The inequalities derived with Bell’s hidden variablesare violated for quantum observables. Thus, Bell’s hidden variables shouldbe rejected and the validity of quantum theory is confirmed. (This foundationalachievement deserved the Nobel Prize in 2022.) This scientific loop,ignorance of the uncertainty and complementarity principles – hidden variablesmodel – Bell’s inequalities – their violation – reestablishing the validityof the uncertainty and complementarity principles, was stimulating for quantumfoundations. However, Bohr and Heisenberg might say that such resultscan be expected from the very beginning. For them, the uncertainty andcomplementarity principles form the basis of quantum physics. And theycan’t be rejected, since they are the consequences of the so-called quantum postulate– the existence of an indivisible quantum of action given by Planck’sconstant h. The quantum postulate is the ontological basis of quantum theory.I formulated its epistemic counterpart in the form of the principle ofquantum action invariance.
A case study of quantum mechanics is investigated in the framework of the philosophical opposition “mathematical model – reality”. All classical science obeys the postulate about the fundamental difference of model and reality, and thus distinguishing epistemology from ontology fundamentally. The theorems about the absence of hidden variables in quantum mechanics imply for it to be “complete” (versus Einstein’s opinion). That consistent completeness (unlike arithmetic to set theory in the foundations of mathematics in Gödel’s opinion) can be interpreted furthermore as the coincidence of model and reality. The paper discusses the option and fact of that coincidence it its base: the fundamental postulate formulated by Niels Bohr about what quantum mechanics studies (unlike all classical science). Quantum mechanics involves and develops further both identification and disjunctive distinction of the global space of the apparatus and the local space of the investigated quantum entity as complementary to each other. This results into the analogical complementarity of model and reality in quantum mechanics. The apparatus turns out to be both absolutely “transparent” and identically coinciding simultaneously with the reflected quantum reality. Thus, the coincidence of model and reality is postulated as necessary condition for cognition in quantum mechanics by Bohr’s postulate and further, embodied in its formalism of the separable complex Hilbert space, in turn, implying the theorems of the absence of hidden variables (or the equivalent to them “conservation of energy conservation” in quantum mechanics). What the apparatus and measured entity exchange cannot be energy (for the different exponents of energy), but quantum information (as a certain, unambiguously determined wave function) therefore a generalized law of conservation, from which the conservation of energy conservation is a corollary. Particularly, the local and global space (rigorously justified in the Standard model) share the complementarity isomorphic to that of model and reality in the foundation of quantum mechanics. On that background, one can think of the troubles of “quantum gravity” as fundamental, direct corollaries from the postulates of quantum mechanics. Gravity can be defined only as a relation or by a pair of non-orthogonal separable complex Hilbert space attachable whether to two “parts” or to a whole and its parts. On the contrary, all the three fundamental interactions in the Standard model are “flat” and only “properties”: they need only a single separable complex Hilbert space to be defined.
Abstract By filtering out the philosophic component we can be said that the EPR-paper was directed against the straightforward interpretation of the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle or more generally the Bohr’s complementarity principle. The latter expresses contextuality of quantum measurements: dependence of measurement’s output on the complete experimental arrangement. However, Bell restructured the EPR-argument against complementarity to justify nonlocal theories with hidden variables of the Bohmian mechanics’ type. Then this Bell’s kind of nonlocality - subquantum nonlocality - was lifted to the level of quantum theory - up to the terminology “quantum nonlocality”. The aim of this short note is to explain that Bell’s test is simply a special test of local incompatibility of quantum observables, similar to interference experiments, e.g., the two-slit experiment.
The two previous papers developed quantum mechanical formalism from classical mechanics and two additional postulates. In the first paper it was also shown that the uncertainty relations possess no ontological validity and only reflect the formalism's limitations. In this paper, a Realist Interpretation of quantum mechanics based on these results is elaborated and compared to the Copenhagen Interpretation. We demonstrate that von Neumann's proof of the impossibility of a hidden variable theory is not correct, independently of Bell's argumentation. A local hidden variable theory is found for non-relativistic quantum mechanics, which is nothing else than newtonian mechanics itself. We prove that Bell's theorem does not imply in a non-locality of quantum mechanics, and also demonstrate that Bohm's theory cannot be considered a true hidden variable theory.